Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Linus Torvalds: 2560x1600 Needs To Be Next Standard

57 posts in this topic

Posted

Linus Torvalds believes that it is time to leave antiquated screen resolutions behind.

Most of the buzz surrounding Google

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

2560x1600 is one high res terminal

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Retina White Text over Retina Black background! :laugh:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why stop there? I want 4K resolution on my laptop and at least 1080p on my thermostat.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I like the way Linus thinks. :)

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Already running it Linus :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well, I think he's absolutely right... :)

Glassed Silver:mac

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

16x10 is an obsolete aspect ratio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well, yes and no.

Yes to higher resolutions and escaping this 1080p curse we've been stuck with due to the economics of scale.

No in terms of specifics. That resolution is only one aspect ratio (16:10). While I'm a big fan of 16:10, letterboxing is just annoying when watching movies. For people who care, and want a 16:9 display, the resolution you should be asking for is 2560x1440.

16x10 is an obsolete aspect ratio.

This is an example of the effects of scale. While I think work is more comfortable with the extra vertical resolution, 16:9 completely destroyed 16:10 because it was cheaper to manufacture (monitor panels could be lumped in with TV panels). High-resolution displays are helping us escape the TV technology trap, though, and we might see a rise in != 16:9 displays over the next few years.

On the other hand, if 4K really takes off, large displays might just jump on that bandwagon, and you might start seeing a lot of 27-30" 4K 16:9 monitors on the cheap.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why stop there? I want 4K resolution on my laptop and at least 1080p on my thermostat.

lol!! That's good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

16:10 is the only way to go for a desktop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I hate 16:9 for daily workflow.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

16:10 is obsolete!? It is by far my res of choice. For desktop monitors it is best by far - Letterboxed movies are fine, and the extra height is great for working.

16:10 on a phone/tablet? That I can understand if you say its not ideal, but I still like it...the Nexus10 looks functional to me.

I'm not a pixel junkie myself...I'm very happy with 1920x1200 on a 24" display.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I saw this the other day, It is definitely way past time to move on where it comes to laptop screens and desktop monitors. We've been stuck with 1080p for what seems like an eternity and pretty much every monitor released right now is still 1080p when we all know they can very easily move on to 2560x1600 and even beyond that without raising the cost too much. This res seems to be exclusively kept for top end 30" IPS displays from the likes of dell. It all comes down to the display manufacturers milking 1080p"indefinitely" I have no idea what would push them to finally move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

16:10 is obsolete!? It is by far my res of choice. For desktop monitors it is best by far - Letterboxed movies are fine, and the extra height is great for working.

I tend to agree, my primary usage is work and occasionally gaming.. just a bit more screen real estate to work with.. games just "feel" a little weird at 16:9 too, but just what I'm used to I guess. I can totally understand some wanting 16:9 instead though.. for me, I got a ginormous TV upstairs for watching movies so the aspect ratio never bothered me. Guess it depends on your primary motivation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I was looking to replace my old 24' MVA LCD (1920x1200) from 2007ish with something higher res when the power supply died. I saw 27' consumer LCDs (not a TV) and they are lower resolution than my old 24'...even 24' LCDs are lower res (1920x1080). Also, the current MVA panels look worse than my 24'...ended up paying someone to fix it as there was nothing with a reasonable price tag to replace it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why stop there? I want 4K resolution on my laptop and at least 1080p on my thermostat.

right now this cannot happen because of battery life. Wait a few years.

25x16 sounds like great for tablets if they can keep battery life at 10 hours. That should be the standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why stop there? I want 4K resolution on my laptop and at least 1080p on my thermostat.
4K is too mainstream. 8K is the way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm really not sure I understand this trend of squeezing more pixels into the same physical space. Have we suddenly evolved to have mega awesome eyes that can see individual pixels at 5 feet away? :wacko: Using my computer, netbook or phone I can't see the individual pixels unless my eyes are too close to the screen. Maybe I'm not understanding something but it seems like pointless number increases to me, much like camera megapixels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I changed my laptop's screen from 720p to 1080p.... never going back, who ever tought 1366x768 screens are good... is plain wrong, even I prefer 1280x800.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm really not sure I understand this trend of squeezing more pixels into the same physical space. Have we suddenly evolved to have mega awesome eyes that can see individual pixels at 5 feet away? :wacko: Using my computer, netbook or phone I can't see the individual pixels unless my eyes are too close to the screen. Maybe I'm not understanding something but it seems like pointless number increases to me, much like camera megapixels.

Try disabling font anti-aliasing and you'll quickly start seeing individual pixels.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I am not sure that he is saying 2560x1600 needs to be the next standard but that 300ppi+ should be the minimum requirement.

And I agree with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Unless anything has changed things just break when you try and scale things up in a desktop environment, I'm personally happy with 1440x900 on my 13" ultrabook... i dont think i would gain anything by having a stupidly high resolution, things might look a bit sharper and thats it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

... things might look a bit sharper and thats it.

Well, yeah, kinda the point :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm really not sure I understand this trend of squeezing more pixels into the same physical space. Have we suddenly evolved to have mega awesome eyes that can see individual pixels at 5 feet away? :wacko: Using my computer, netbook or phone I can't see the individual pixels unless my eyes are too close to the screen. Maybe I'm not understanding something but it seems like pointless number increases to me, much like camera megapixels.

Look at the ipad2 and new ipad, there is a real difference in view photos. I am sure looking at say a transformer to a N10 and there again will be a huge difference in how a photo looks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.